Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
was taken out of the final version that we believe was ultimately given to the u.n. ambassador, susan rice. why was that done? who did this? catherine herridge is live on capitol hill. reporter: that's right. congressional horses tell fox news that there were changes to the cia talking points and that language of al qaeda affiliated individuals was replace -- replaced, which have the impact of minimizing or downplaying the role of al qaeda and another group, al sharia come on the consulate on 9/11. there was also testimony this week that the intelligence community to those talking points and went to an interagency process. so that other elements of the intelligence community as well as input and review by the state department, as well as the department of justice, that eventually made its way to ambassador susan rice. no one commissioner who was the final author of this talking point given to ambassador susan rice, who is on the sunday talk show on september 16 and repeated on multiple occasions that meant david was in response to the anti-islam video and that was a demonstration that had
-style hearings on the attack on the consulate in benghazi and if you nominate susan rice as secretary of state they will do everything they can to block the nomination. he says he simply doesn't trust her. >> i won't comment at this point on various nominations that i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. those are things that are being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice. she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator tbram and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she received, and besmir much her reputation is outrageous. and, you know, afte
yesterday defending u.n. ambassador susan rice for her response in the days following the terrorist attack in benghazi in what has now become one of the largest conflicts for his administration, at least on the terrorism front. the president's remarks yesterday raise new questions over the conflicting accounts from the white house about the deadly attack. here's why. on september 11th, four americans were killed -- you know that now -- in our consulate in benghazi, including our ambassador. it was a terrorist attack. on the 16th of september, five days later, ambassador rice went on five sunday shows, including fox news sunday, and suggested that the attack was linked to an internet video. >> best assessment we have today is that, in fact, this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack, that what happened initially was it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in cairo as a consequence of the video. megyn: when challenged yesterday on the story that ms. rice told several networks, the president said he, the white house, sent her out there with that explanation. >> as i've s
to something that was just asked. about susan rice. if she was to go before a confirmation hearing -- >> for you i'll break the hypothetical rule. >> nobody 0 else. >> thank you. if she were to go before a senate confirmation hearing could she answer questions with a simple yes? are questions answerable? >> i'm not sure what you're asking, april. again, i'm not going to speculate about personnel matters and who will or will not be participating in nomination hearings. you know, i can tell you that the president believes that ambassador rice has done an excellent job, as the united states ambassador to the united nations, and i believe that -- and i know that he believes that everyone here working for him has been transparent and in the way that we've tried to answer questions about what happened in benghazi and going back to briefings that we had again and again, that the information that we provided was based on the available assessments at the time, and as those assessments evolved and became more detailed and clear we provided additional information, and that was certainly true
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)